Relationship Models
The named ways of stating how science and religion relate. This section's baseline is the Complexity model; the others are catalogued because each has governed real institutions and real arguments — including the Conflict model, whose history is the reason the baseline exists.
Model
Conflict
Science and religion are natural enemies; history is the record of their war. The position of Draper and White, abandoned by historians and alive everywhere else.
Model
Independence
Two magisteria, two kinds of question, no trespass: science takes the facts, religion takes the meaning. Gould’s NOMA is the famous modern form.
Model
Dialogue
Distinct disciplines in real conversation: each may question and enrich the other, without merger and without war.
Model
Integration
One worldview, deliberately woven: theology re-read in light of science, science interpreted inside a doctrine of creation.
Model
Complexity
The historians’ settlement: no timeless essences, only particular people, institutions, and disputes, whose relations must be told case by case. This site’s baseline.
Model
Two Books
Nature and Scripture as two books by one Author: where they seem to conflict, the reading — not the book — is at fault.
Model
Domination
Knowledge as power and nature as material: the instrumental program, and its corruption of the Genesis mandate into ownership without accountability.
Model
Stewardship
Humanity as tenant and keeper, not owner: inquiry and use bound by accountability to the earth’s Owner and to those who inherit it.
Model
Sacramental
Matter mediates grace: the world studied closely becomes transparent to its Maker, and things are judged as icons or idols.
Model
Apophatic restraint
The discipline of not saying: knowledge bounded by a confession that reality exceeds our formulations, in theology and in science alike.
Model
Techno-asceticism
Refusal as discipline: communities that govern tools by rule — fasting from technologies that would dissolve the goods the community exists to keep.